er "must know his job, without being a specialist in every phase of it" (Bradley 5). No general is likely to succeed in inducing his or her subordinates to follow his or her lead unless they have "faith that their leaders have mastered the technical and tactical aspects of their jobs" (Faulkner 142).
No one is born with all the skills needed to lead a modern military force. Hence education, training and experience are required. Abstract knowledge is insufficient. Bradley said that "judgment comes from experience" and "the leader with experience will have a considerable advantage over the leader who lacks it" (9). The capacity for strategic vision, tactical maneuver, intimate knowledge of the terrain, an understanding of the power and limitations of one's weapons, the ability to read maps and survey the terrain, all depend on certain level of cerebral capacity as well as mental and physical energy and stamina which are derived largely from one's genetic makeup and general health.
The world's greatest commanders generally have special skills in certain areas. Napoleon was a master of the terrain and the use of artillery. Alexander the Great excelled at coordinating and integrating the efforts of infantry and cavalry. MacArthur made especially effective use of tactical airpower. German general Erich von Manstein had few peers in conducting retreats, etc.
Napoleon said that "good leadership was a combination of two kinds of qualities --qualities of the intellect, which are trained and cultivated, and those of temperament which can improved by determination and self-discipline" (Luvaas 19). Napoleon was trained at the best French military academies. Luvaas said he had a "prodigious memory and . . . infinite capacity for mastering details" (20). Yet he himself said "the art of war . . . can be learned neither from books nor from practice; it is a touch for command that constitutes a genius for war" (Connelly 11). Yet the origin of ...